My new favorite argument

I just came across this on Wikipedia, and I am still reeling in astonishment. It's called the 'Omnipotence Paradox.' Just thought I'd throw it on here to give you guys some quick and easy ammo against theists. I'll give you the scientific idea, then the example (aka 'Paradox of the Stone').If a being can perform such actions, then it can limit it's own ability to perform such actions. By this arguement, it cannot perform all actions, yet, on the other hand if it cannot limit it's own actions, then that is something it cannot do, and therefore, is not omnipotent. And now for the easy version:

Could god create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it? If so, he would then cease to be omnipotent. If not, he was not omnipotent to begin with.

Thank you for your time and patience. Another win for the Rationalists brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Atheist,

Replies to This Discussion

"The logic behind your argument of someone claiming that he is an automaton is faulty. Why would an automaton be more faulty than a being with free will?"

Let me see if I can break this down.

1. I do not believe that free will exists.

2. If I do not believe that free will exists, I was compelled by the laws of physics (my programming if you prefer) to not believe that free will exists (I had no choice in the matter).

3. The stuff that my software runs on is my brain matter, or "wetware" if you prefer.

4. Wetware is subject to damage by injury and various pathologies for example, cancerous tumors, stroke, Alzeimer's disease, schizophrenia and so on.

5. Some damage or pathologies can warp and even drastically alter one's perception of reality or ability to think coherently, thus my software will be FUBAR (software is faulty).

6. It is possible that I am actually in a straight-jacket in a padded room, suffering from a delusion so complete as to believe I am married, I have a job, I play golf, go on holiday, and have a passtime of discussing free will on the Think Athiest forum. The belief that free will does not exist arises from a brian injury or pathology and is therefore faulty.

OR...

1. I do not believe that free will exists.

2. If I do not believe that free will exists, I was compelled by the laws of physics (my programming if you prefer) to not believe that free will exists (I had no choice in the matter).

3. The stuff that my software runs on is my brain matter, or "wetware" if you prefer.

4. Wetware in humans have a broad range of "intelligence quotients" from intellectually disabled to genius but on average from IQ 90 to IQ 110.

5. Even with an average intelligence I am able to understand most theories of science, for example, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics at the very least as explained to me by authorities on the subjects.

6. Theories can be politicised like Global Warming. Business can hire scientists to provide data that demonstrates that global warming is not caused by human actitivity. Environmentalists can hire scientists to provide data that demonstrates that global warming is caused by human activity. Mathematics can be fudged. Einstein introduced the Cosmological constant into his General Theory of Relativity in 1917 to force his equations to demonstrate a static universe (The Steady State Theory) rather than an expanding Universe. Even though the Cosmological constant has been corrected to demonstrate an expanding universe, Relativity is nonetheless an incomplete theory since it does not explain the microscopic world of quantum mecahnics and belief that free will does not exist arises from the determinism of Relativity (which is incomplete and contradicted by the Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics)

Until Realtivity and QM are resolved by a better theory, the alleged "Theory of Everything," the belief the free will does not exist is just that, a belief--so too is the belief in free will. I must therefore "weigh the facts," remain skeptical, withold provisional assent.

"When you investigate free will somehow the notion of AI always creeps in and the difference between hard and soft AI and whether they can be realized become as important as the original question."

...

"This question would be resolved if scientists created an AI which would be able to pass as a human being."

I very much doubt that Artificial Intelligence, that is, a conscious computer will be developed in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, computers are deterministic devices. Even the randomize function is "pseudo random." You might think that the developement of quantum computers will promise conscious computers, but quantum computers can't do anything that conventional computers can't do. Quantum computers will do what conventional computers can only much, much faster.

"You mention thinking, but surely you must think in a certain way, must obey certain "laws" of thinking like logic and the like? You mention weighing facts, but what criteria do you use when weighing them? Aren`t those criteria a part of your program code? Wouldn`t being free mean you do not have criteria at all? But how would you then weigh facts and think?

Take a look at the wikipedia page on epistemology. When have a number tools that we can use to arrive at conclusions, math, science, reason and so on. And I suppose each can be simulated on a computer, but all have flaws that would suffer from the halting/endless loop problem. For example, the Liar's Paradox would cause an endless loop deciding between true and false. By thinking and weighing the facts I mean when one tool fails we can fall back on another tool.

Every formal system such as mathematics, logic, etc. has it's limitations--the Liar's Paradox from the perspective of philosophy, or the halting problem/endless loop from the perspective of computer and information sciences, or Gödel's incompleteness in mathematics. It would seem then that we must exercise our free will to "weigh the facts." I think J.P. Moreland articulates it better than I can:

"Acts of deliberation presuppose that the rational process is ‘up to me’ and is not determined prior to or during the process. The conclusion is drawn freely. My act of deliberation itself contributes by way of exercises of active power to what outcome is reached. Acts of deliberation presuppose that there is more than one possible conclusion one could reach, but if determinism is true, there is only one outcome possible, and it was fixed prior to the act of deliberation by forces outside the agent’s control. In deliberation, we not only weigh evidence, we also weight evidence – freely assign it certain importance in the rational process. Moreover we stand at the end of deliberative processes as intellectually responsible rational agents. Our conclusions are ones we or anyone in relevantly similar circumstances ought to draw. On the reasonable assumption that ought implies can, then genuine epistemic responsibility requires free will."

I did not reply to your first reply because I found it too confusing. I do understand all of it but I do not understand where you are going with this. The fact is that even if absolute determinism is a state of things we cannot really live by it. Morality presumes free choice and so does deliberation. But just because we cannot conceive of not being free, that does not mean that is not the case. Since you invoked the Godel`s theorem of incompleteness, let me use it in its most simplified form to illustrate my point. The GTI states that the axioms (basic claims which are taken for granted) of a system can only be confirmed by invoking evidence from outside the system. In the case of determinism (which I assume to hold for the whole universe), we are a part of the universe and, since we are part of the said system, we cannot hope to find evidence with which to confirm the very fundamental laws of that system (including determinism). Practically speaking, our subjective stance can never conform to the idea of determinacy, but neither can it act according to the fact that time does not exist. We are trying to objectify everything, but we cannot be objective in analyzing things of which we are a part. Time, free will, etc. are qualities of our subjective experience, and necessary ones at that. But that still does not say anything about them really being the state of things. Whether we should even consider talking about it if it doesn`t affect our everyday view of things is a very plausible argument. But not because it is not so, but because it very well may be that we can never know those things.

Here`s a mind-bender. Can God choose not to be free? If he can, then he is not free. If he can`t, he is not free. Therefore, God is deterministic. If God created everything, how could something deterministic create something which is not?

"Can God choose not to be free? If he can, then he is not free. If he can`t, he is not free."

Could not this be linked to the notion of rationality? As in: God's general behavior is rational and a subject of free will. He has the ability for irrational behavior but (occationally) choose to avoid it due to free will. He will be deterministic if he always choose the most rational choice because reason is predictable. God can therefore choose to be not free, but it's an irrational choice.

(The only assumption required for the conclusion is an overweight of rational vs irrational behavior.)

---

In any event, it doesn't matter too much since it appears God has retired after a flurry of activity around 6k years ago. ;)